Subtext in Bond: You Only Live Twice

So in the book I picked up yesterday, James Bond in the 21st Century: Why We Still Need 007, there is an article by John Cox about the sexual subtext in James Bond. I can't remember ever discussing such things before, here or "that other place".

Here's what he says about the subtext in YOLT:

"Beneath it's surface text, You Only Live Twice is a movie about James Bond's death and journey through purgatory. Never has a world seemed so out of Bond's control; yet never has Bond seemed so resigned to his fate."

Cox reminds us that the screenplay was written by Roald Dahl. You know, James and the Giant Peach? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Those books are ripe with subtext, and are far from ordinary in their genres. Why should YOLT not be the same?

Some of the evidence is less that subliminal. Bond's death is faked, and he becomes someone else. After his "death" he goes to a place with volcanoes, fire, and lava. Hell, anyone?

Cox also points out that some of the normal Bond archetypes have changed. He is called "Zero Zero" instead of 007, and he orders his martini "stirred, no shaken." He also believes that certain YOLT anachronisms are intentional, such as saying he has never been to Japan, when he said he did in FRWL. Bond is only in one location for the entire film, again, purgatory.

He also finds it appropriate that Blofeld's face is first shown in YOLT. If Bond is in hell, of course he will see the devil himself, right?

Then, at the end, he is in a boat with a girl in a bikini, just like the end of TB. Back to the familiar. Rebirth.

So that's what Cox sees, and I'm certainly willing to give YOLT a rewatch. It's second from the bottom of my list, but I think viewing it in this light might improve it for me.

Do you agree? Do you think he's reading too much in to a Bond movie?

Yes, I think the author is reading too much into this. It's like trying to find subliminal messages in Beatles or Led Zeppelin songs. But, on the other hand, given Roald Dahl's treatment, it is possible he wrote in all these elements of the story with the itent of subtext in mind. Perhaps he was feeling that the Bond character was nearing the end of his life in terms of worldwide fame and formula and was in need of a rebirth...

It's certainly a fun excercise, and makes me think a bit about what the writers had in mind. Though I think the producers were going for blockbuster extravanza and nothing more.

lalala2004 wrote:

So in the book I picked up yesterday, James Bond in the 21st Century: Why We Still Need 007, there is an article by John Cox about the sexual subtext in James Bond. I can't remember ever discussing such things before, here or "that other place".

Here's what he says about the subtext in YOLT:

"Beneath it's surface text, You Only Live Twice is a movie about James Bond's death and journey through purgatory. Never has a world seemed so out of Bond's control; yet never has Bond seemed so resigned to his fate."

Cox reminds us that the screenplay was written by Roald Dahl. You know, James and the Giant Peach? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Those books are ripe with subtext, and are far from ordinary in their genres. Why should YOLT not be the same?

Do you agree? Do you think he's reading too much in to a Bond movie?

Roald Dahl was an unusual fellow who liked to subvert conventions, so I don't doubt that in his case there is another layer of meaning deliberatly concealed beneath the surface for those inclined to look for it

I think it's Dahl that makes this one the most easy to believe. I can't believe I never really thought of it before. This might really change my opinion of YOLT....

I found this the most interesting of the subtext threads you posted, lalala, because I've been thinking of doing a fan-edit of this film to eliminate (almost) all dialogue and emphasize the surreality of Bond's surroundings.

The plot's progression is often nonsensical, so why not play that up? The film's best features are its music and set design. I might enjoy the resultant atmosphere more were it not for sundry leaps in logic and Connery's bored performance. If YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE more openly toyed with the question of Bond's death (real or not?) it would be a more compelling watch for me.

The subtext proposed here is refreshingly asexual, as well.

Sleeper wrote:

I found this the most interesting of the subtext threads you posted, lalala, because I've been thinking of doing a fan-edit of this film to eliminate (almost) all dialogue and emphasize the surreality of Bond's surroundings.

The plot's progression is often nonsensical, so why not play that up? The film's best features are its music and set design. I might enjoy the resultant atmosphere more were it not for sundry leaps in logic and Connery's bored performance. If YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE more openly toyed with the question of Bond's death (real or not?) it would be a more compelling watch for me.

The subtext proposed here is refreshingly asexual, as well.

I would most absolutely be interested in your fan-edit.

Make it happen!

Just went through the film a couple hours ago. My ideas are definitely workable.

Then I remembered that it's not out on Blu-ray yet. Ah well, there's always THUNDERBALL to edit. This John Cox fellow didn't happen to theorize any about Connery's fourth, did he? I may give this a go anyways. DVD does look pretty good. If I recall, you don't have much time for Bond's Japanese romp (in its present form at least).

Not to be confused with Bond's Japanese rump. That's a deleted scene.

I was under the impression that much of Dahl's screenplay was thrown out, and that the filming script is largely the work of a writer that is not credited. So, the "James and the Giant Peach has a lot of subtext!" thing may be a case of putting the cart ahead of the horse.

It's also possible that whatever Dahl's vision might have been, it was likely diluted by having to stick to an EON-mandated formula. (It's horrible to think the series was running on formula by only the fifth entry, especially when they had a dozen stories to adapt, but so it was.)

Louis Armstrong wrote:

It's also possible that whatever Dahl's vision might have been, it was likely diluted by having to stick to an EON-mandated formula. (It's horrible to think the series was running on formula by only the fifth entry, especially when they had a dozen stories to adapt, but so it was.)

YOLT may actually have been the moment of genisis for the "formula" as the mode of making a Bond movie
before then they were purely adapting the books to the needs of cinema
they had been going to continue down that path with OHMSS, but for various reasons had to park it
for whatever reason they decided to use YOLT next (they liked the title?)
but the book YOLT takes place after OHMSS and would make no sense taken out of sequence
so they hired Dahl to come up with something, but it had to be something in the style of Fleming (or what they perceived to be the style of Fleming i.e. they sat down and tried to analyse what it needed to have in order to qualify) rather than something that was pure Dahl
so we ended up with something that is neither one thing or the other...

Seve wrote:

they had been going to continue down that path with OHMSS, but for various reasons had to park it
for whatever reason they decided to use YOLT next (they liked the title?)

Both OHMSS' constant delays and the choice to use YOLT had to do with their locations. They couldn't find a suitable Piz Gloria for the longest time, and Japan was perfect as an exotic place to show the world.

Seve wrote:

YOLT may actually have been the moment of genisis for the "formula" as the mode of making a Bond movie

Here's an interesting piece on YOLT, with a lot of Roald Dahl's own words: http://www.tomsoter.com/?q=node/829

Quote :

"They thought of me and I got a call from Broccoli: 'Would you do a Bond script?' I said yes and went up to see them. There were Broccoli and Saltzman, and they said, 'You know, it will have to be completely invented. You can use the Japanese scenes and the names of the characters, but we need an entirely new plot.'"

Quote :

"The main problem was the plot," he said. "I didn't know what the heIl Bond was going to do." Unlike later films in the series, which were often written by committee, Dahl's was finished alone and pretty much from scratch, with a basic plot that foIlows the outline of the first movie in the series, Doctor No.

Quote :

Dahl was given a Bond formula to write You Only Live Twice to: "Bond has three women through the film: If I remember rightly, the first gets killed, the second gets killed and the third gets a fond embrace during the closing sequence. And that's the formula. They found it's cast-iron. So, you have to kill two of them off after he has screwed them a few times. And there is great emphasis on funny gadgets and love-making.”

The hollowed-out volcano was supposedly Ken Adams' idea, after he learned that no Japanese castles were actually built on the coast like Fleming wrote. (Don't ask me why they couldn't have just used a Japanese castle, regardless; from what I recall, the castle's proximity to water wasn't essential to any element other than Bond's apparent death at the end of the novel.) Harold Jack Bloom (who was only given credit for additional story material) came up with most of the major plot twists and turns, such as Bond faking his death... In the article, Dahl makes it very clear that the film was all about gadgets and gimmicks.

I've heard elsewhere that Broccoli only offered the job to Dahl because Dahl needed money to pay for his wife's medical expenses, and that he found the job very distasteful.

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, subtext...

All I'm getting at here is that I doubt Dahl purposely wrote any kind of subtext into his screenplay.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, subtext...

When blueblood eventually makes his bungee jump, these threads will be 9+ pages long.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Here's an interesting piece on YOLT, with a lot of Roald Dahl's own words:...

interesting, thanks for posting

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I've heard elsewhere that Broccoli only offered the job to Dahl because Dahl needed money to pay for his wife's medical expenses, and that he found the job very distasteful.
What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, subtext...
All I'm getting at here is that I doubt Dahl purposely wrote any kind of subtext into his screenplay.

yes, that would appear to be the case
however we must always bear in mind that "show people (including authors) make notoriously unreliable witnesses"
Dahl may well have been crafting his comments to deflect blame from himself for the scripts perceived shortcomings after the fact?
in which case the subtext would appear to be "don't blame me, I was only in it for the money"

Seve wrote:

however we must always bear in mind that "show people (including authors) make notoriously unreliable witnesses"

That should be your custom title or something!

I don't think Dahl found his script to be sub-par. He just thought writing screenplays was a tough task that only hard-up writers attempt. He also didn't take Bond seriously at all - really didn't give a damn, before or after writing.

"When Roald Dahl's wife, Patricia Neal, suffered three successive strokes, while pregnant with their fifth child in 1965. Dahl spent most of the rest of the sixties helping to rehabilitate his her. To bring in needed money during this time, he wrote the script for the James Bond film, You Only Live Twice, and wrote the screenplay for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, adapted from an Ian Fleming story.
A key theme in Dahl's novels is the use of violence and cruelty by authority figures on the weak. Dahl generally depicts at least one authority in each story as incredibly cruel, sadistic and bigoted. This is a direct reflection of his experiences as a child attending boarding schools in England. However, very important to note is that Dahl loved and respected the key authority figure in his life, his mother. This is also reflected quite often in a loving and caring authority who helps the child "victim" to triumph. "

firstly, it would appear that the sub textual instances suggested by Cox are apparently not typical of Dahl
consisting of the usual shallow phallic innuendo and roman catholic Christian metaphors

secondly, considering the sub textual references traditionally attributed to Dahl's work
Blofeld as the cruel authority figure is a natural
but James Bond as the victim? not really his style, although he always gets into a few tight spots, he generally gets himself out of them
"M" for mother? perhaps Felix Leiter and the cousins, with their, then, triple A pockets full of cash?
or Bond as saviour of…? usually of "the Free World" but that hardly constitutes an orphan child character
I think Dahl would have been happier writing a Steve McQueen movie

lalala2004 wrote:

, and he orders his martini "stirred, no shaken."

His contact in Japan makes him a drink and then asks him if "stirred, not shaken" was correct. Bond says yes, but maybe he was just trying to be polite.


As for the overall theory, I would say that the writers probably didnt have this specific subtext in mind when the movie was made. Its an interesting theory though.

Shame Lala's not around here anymore.